A Call for Moral Leadership*

Published on January 26, 2008

Whatever be the final judgment on Cardinal Sin’s controversial intervention in the political arena, the fact is the bishops cannot isolate themselves from what is going on and cannot continue to remain silent, wittingly or unwittingly serving as props to a regime widely perceived to be illegitimate, morally bankrupt and the cause of intolerable hardships and brutality inflicted upon the people.

BY CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO
Streetwise / Business World
Posted by Bulatlat
Vol. VII, No. 50, January 27-February 2, 2008

One of the key elements of the People Power I and II uprisings that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and then the Estrada presidency was the timely intervention of Jaime Cardinal Sin – the jovial and incomparably politically astute head of the wealthy Archdiocese of Manila – to tip the balance against the ruling regimes in favor of Opposition leaders “Cory” Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

It is quite understandable that in these politically volatile times when another sitting President is again accused of corruption, electoral fraud, violations of human rights as well as maneuvering to stay in power long after her term ends, many quarters pine for the emergence of another Cardinal Sin.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) gathers for its biennial plenary session this January. There have been a flurry of meetings in the run-up to the CBCP meeting as both Malacañang and the stalwarts of anti-Arroyo groups attempt to get the ear of the bishops and convince to them to lend moral authority to their respective positions.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita has admitted to inviting a group of bishops to the Palace for briefings by Cabinet secretaries as well as to hear out the church leaders’ concerns. In the past Mrs. Arroyo’s operatives have been caught red-handed distributing envelopes stuffed with cash right where Their Eminences were holding their closed-door meetings; in the process both the giver and the recipients of such presidential largesse have become tainted.

The GMA regime’s defenders have also taken advantage of the built-in conservatism of individual bishops, i.e. their tendency to concern themselves exclusively with their diocesan affairs and not be bothered with national issues.

Malacañang is notorious for channeling government funds into the social amelioration programs of government-friendly if not pro-GMA bishops and priests. This is viewed by many as a thinly-disguised move to further coopt the princes of the church and sustain their outspoken or tacit support for the government.

In contrast, the anti-Arroyo forces have had neither the clout nor the resources to get the bishops to pay attention to their appeals, much less to convince them to use their moral suasion to intervene in the political arena. Last year’s CBCP stand against moves to amend the Constitution in order to allow Mrs. Arroyo to extend her term of office beyond 2010 was a rare exception.

It would seem that only the gravity and the unabated deterioration of the socio-economic and political situation has kept the bishops from completely retreating into the safety of political ambiguity or passivity.

The legacy of the late Cardinal Sin has dimmed and diminished over time especially since signals emanating from the Vatican itself have discouraged such kind of clerical activism. Certainly the Pope’s partitioning of the once mighty archdiocese of Manila into four distinct dioceses, each with its own head, has served to undercut the power — both spiritual and temporal – of any would-be Sin successor.

In any case, it is clear that the bishops continue to exercise considerable influence over the laity who constitutes a sizeable majority of the population. This influence is first of all spiritual and moral, and by extension political, as the moral dimension of political problems and issues assumes prominence and urgency.

Pages: 1 2